Written by PaddyLandau the 14 Jan 12 at 18:30.

Allow a user to "link" his desktop settings to his Ubuntu One account. The linking would allow the user to synchronise the following items (each one would have to be opt-in; none would be done by default):

* Wallpaper
* Theme
* The entire set of Compiz Config settings

(I'm open to other ideas as to what to synchronise.)

When linking a new login for the first time, the desktop would ask whether or not to synchronise each of the items (again, for privacy concerns, they would be opt-out by default).

Obviously, there would have to be a "sanity check" when synchronising onto a target machine. Thus:

* Themes would be synchronised only if the target machine supported that particular theme (so, for example, you wouldn't try to sync a 10.04 theme with its panels onto a 12.04 theme with Unity, or an imported theme onto a computer without that theme being available).

* Compiz Config settings would be synchronised only if the target machine had the same version of Ubuntu (so don't try to synchronise (say) Kubuntu with Lubuntu).

Allow a user to "link" his desktop settings to his Ubuntu One account. The linking would allow the user to synchronise the following items (each one would have to be opt-in; none would be done by default): * Wallpaper * Theme * The entire set of Compiz Config settings (I'm open to other ideas as to what to synchronise.) When linking a new login for the first time, the desktop would ask whether or not to synchronise each of the items (again, for privacy concerns, they would be opt-out by default). Obviously, there would have to be a "sanity check" when synchronising onto a target machine. Thus: * Themes would be synchronised only if the target machine supported that particular theme (so, for example, you wouldn't try to sync a 10.04 theme with its panels onto a 12.04 theme with Unity, or an imported theme onto a computer without that theme being available). * Compiz Config settings would be synchronised only if the target machine had the same version of Ubuntu (so don't try to synchronise (say) Kubuntu with Lubuntu). EDIT: Communications with Ubuntu One are all encrypted and stored safely. This would, of course, apply to this option.

Written by wincus the 2 Nov 12 at 14:39.

Use Ubuntu one account to sync gconf and config files across multiple devices.

Use Ubuntu one account to sync gconf and config files across multiple devices.

Written by beruic the 21 Nov 12 at 10:02.

First of all, like with Dropbox, the user may not wish to sync all configuration to all machines.

Secondly, some config may be unsuitable for syncing, as changes in different versions of Ubuntu may render them incompatible.

Therefore there should be a nice user-friendly GUI in U1 (or perhaps some other app utilizing U1, but also able to export to a file) to make it easy for the user to select which application configs and system settings to sync. This way system settings may also be stored in an intermediate format, with filters for every version, and perhaps flavour of Ubuntu. Applications may likewise provide helpers to only sync parts of the config, omit config that may cause more damage than good, handle concurrency (e.g. syncing tomboy notes), or simply just to know which folders to sync for what purpose (e.g. sync only the notes of Tomboy, rather than the settings of the application, or perhaps to omit machine specific settings for another application).

First of all, like with Dropbox, the user may not wish to sync all configuration to all machines. Secondly, some config may be unsuitable for syncing, as changes in different versions of Ubuntu may render them incompatible. Therefore there should be a nice user-friendly GUI in U1 (or perhaps some other app utilizing U1, but also able to export to a file) to make it easy for the user to select which application configs and system settings to sync. This way system settings may also be stored in an intermediate format, with filters for every version, and perhaps flavour of Ubuntu. Applications may likewise provide helpers to only sync parts of the config, omit config that may cause more damage than good, handle concurrency (e.g. syncing tomboy notes), or simply just to know which folders to sync for what purpose (e.g. sync only the notes of Tomboy, rather than the settings of the application, or perhaps to omit machine specific settings for another application).

Written by oencke the 21 Apr 08 at 19:58.

Ubuntu Brainstorm was updated in January 2009. Since the idea #7370 was submitted before this update, its rationale and solution are not separated. Please vote accordingly, and if you have the necessary rights, please separate the rationale from the solution. Thanks!

<i>Ubuntu Brainstorm was updated in January 2009. Since the idea #7370 was submitted before this update, its rationale and solution are not separated. Please vote accordingly, and if you have the necessary rights, please separate the rationale from the solution.</i><br /> Thanks!

Written by Thelasko the 29 Jan 09 at 14:51.

A minor variant of the solution above, specifying "x86-64" ensures it isn't confused with IA64 and other 64-bit architectures.

A minor variant of the solution above, specifying "x86-64" ensures it isn't confused with IA64 and other 64-bit architectures.

Written by Darwin Survivor the 20 Feb 10 at 02:56.

Most users would not know that i386 is 32 bit or what the "x86" part of "x86_64" means (or the x for that matter). In order to make this as easy and simple for users as humanly possible, we should simply label them as "64 bit" and "32 bit". Beside the options would be a "details" or "help" button that would:
-explain the differences (max ram, performance, compatibility, etc)
-give a specific version type (i386/x86_64/etc) for advanced users
-give instructions to find out what their machine supports (VERY important)

This makes it industry neutral, while also making it much simpler for non-technical users to figure it out. We are targetting non-technical people after all, so why all the jargon?

Most users would not know that i386 is 32 bit or what the "x86" part of "x86_64" means (or the x for that matter). In order to make this as easy and simple for users as humanly possible, we should simply label them as "64 bit" and "32 bit". Beside the options would be a "details" or "help" button that would: -explain the differences (max ram, performance, compatibility, etc) -give a specific version type (i386/x86_64/etc) for advanced users -give instructions to find out what their machine supports (VERY important) This makes it industry neutral, while also making it much simpler for non-technical users to figure it out. We are targetting non-technical people after all, so why all the jargon?

Written by readmanr the 18 Feb 10 at 21:43.

The generic term x86-64 is sometimes shortened to x64 as another vendor-neutral term for x86-64 processors from any company referring to 64bit.

The generic term x86-64 is sometimes shortened to x64 as another vendor-neutral term for x86-64 processors from any company referring to 64bit.

Written by readmanr the 18 Feb 10 at 21:42.

Redhat, Fedora, Mac OS X, and others simply call 64bit "x86_64". It is a clean, neutral name that is accurate no matter which company made the processor, and also does not give free advertising to either company.

Redhat, Fedora, Mac OS X, and others simply call 64bit "x86_64". It is a clean, neutral name that is accurate no matter which company made the processor, and also does not give free advertising to either company.

Written by jbangert the 23 Feb 10 at 21:34.

Some browsers(in particular one quite popular propietary and Evil product) include the string "x64" in the User Agent on 64-bit hardware (http://www.ubuntu.com/getubuntu/download). We could also provide a platform-dependent download link to a tool that checks for 32-bit / 64-bit ( Windows and Mac mostly - just a simple tool that uses CPUID and then gives a Message Box with 2 links ) .
By default, we should specify 2 download Boxes ( "Ubuntu 32-bit" and "Ubuntu 64-bit" ) giving pros and cons .

Some browsers(in particular one quite popular propietary and Evil product) include the string "x64" in the User Agent on 64-bit hardware (http://www.ubuntu.com/getubuntu/download). We could also provide a platform-dependent download link to a tool that checks for 32-bit / 64-bit ( Windows and Mac mostly - just a simple tool that uses CPUID and then gives a Message Box with 2 links ) . By default, we should specify 2 download Boxes ( "Ubuntu 32-bit" and "Ubuntu 64-bit" ) giving pros and cons .

Written by sicofante the 8 Mar 10 at 07:05.

Merging both bars in one will save vertical screen space and won't affect the way we use the windows now.

There's actually no need for more than the three buttons (minimize, maximize, close) since the window menu can be accessed by right clicking on the window's title or no-menu area.

When the window is too narrow for displaying the full title, we can provide a tooltip showing it in full. Also, developers would be careful by choosing what to display as a window title. Name of the application is usually unnecessary (we know what the application is, we launched it...) and usually only the document name is important.

How to technically doing it is out of the scope of this idea (I'm not a developer). Maybe it's just about removing the titlebar altogether (or reducing it to 0 pixels) and add the title and control buttons to the menubar.

Merging both bars in one will save vertical screen space and won't affect the way we use the windows now. There's actually no need for more than the three buttons (minimize, maximize, close) since the window menu can be accessed by right clicking on the window's title or no-menu area. When the window is too narrow for displaying the full title, we can provide a tooltip showing it in full. Also, developers would be careful by choosing what to display as a window title. Name of the application is usually unnecessary (we know what the application is, we launched it...) and usually only the document name is important. How to technically doing it is out of the scope of this idea (I'm not a developer). Maybe it's just about removing the titlebar altogether (or reducing it to 0 pixels) and add the title and control buttons to the menubar.

Written by Klau3 the 10 Mar 10 at 23:25.

Merge title and menu bar like on the screenshot . To see the menu again the user has to click on the “Menu/Options” button in the left corner. Also remove the status bar and replace it by a mouseover information that will appear after a half second – like it is in Lucid right now for the Places menu.

<img src="http://nureineidee.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/nautilus-lucid-lynx-2-mockup.png?w=650" /> Merge title and menu bar like on the screenshot . To see the menu again the user has to click on the “Menu/Options” button in the left corner. Also remove the status bar and replace it by a mouseover information that will appear after a half second – like it is in Lucid right now for the Places menu.

Written by daas88 the 11 Mar 10 at 00:45.

It would be nice if for example the menu bar showed when I press Alt, Alt+M or one of the Fx keys. And there should be a small button in the title bar doing the same thing as the keyboard shortcut.

It would be nice if for example the menu bar showed when I press Alt, Alt+M or one of the Fx keys. And there should be a small button in the title bar doing the same thing as the keyboard shortcut.

Written by Mirek2 the 14 Mar 10 at 14:47.

As someone who has tried a prototype of this, let me tell you that with small windows, small screens, or large menus, it's a nightmare trying to move windows around, if possible at all.
I think Chrome has a good compromise: remove the text from the title bar and make it a lot thinner, but still keep the height big enough so that one can easily move and resize windows without accidentally opening up menus instead.
With maximized windows, the title bar should merge with the menu bar completely, as one can't move a window in maximized state and as it suits the Fitts law nicely (that is, if you remove the top panel in Ubuntu).

As someone who has tried a prototype of this, let me tell you that with small windows, small screens, or large menus, it's a nightmare trying to move windows around, if possible at all. I think Chrome has a good compromise: remove the text from the title bar and make it a lot thinner, but still keep the height big enough so that one can easily move and resize windows without accidentally opening up menus instead. With maximized windows, the title bar should merge with the menu bar completely, as one can't move a window in maximized state and as it suits the Fitts law nicely (that is, if you remove the top panel in Ubuntu).

Written by A.I. the 14 Mar 10 at 23:00.

Install gnome2-globalmenu applet by default to move menubar to top of screen (as in Mac OS X). User can disable it.

Install gnome2-globalmenu applet by default to move menubar to top of screen (as in Mac OS X). User can disable it.

Written by isantop the 16 Mar 10 at 00:22.

Think something similar to UNR. Remove the title from the active window, and display it in the top panel instead, which has wasted space on most systems by default. Long titles can be truncated like in the task list.

Make the titlebar thicker, and put the menubar in it, leaving space to grab and drag, like solution 4. If a windows is narrow, truncate the menu and place a "More..." button, similar to solution #1

Think something similar to UNR. Remove the title from the active window, and display it in the top panel instead, which has wasted space on most systems by default. Long titles can be truncated like in the task list. Make the titlebar thicker, and put the menubar in it, leaving space to grab and drag, like solution 4. If a windows is narrow, truncate the menu and place a "More..." button, similar to solution #1

Written by LukeM33P the 25 Mar 10 at 01:30.

There are a few points I'd like to make:

Most widescreens are 18.5 inches or greater. Many are also high-resolution. Lower-resolution screens are often 4:3, where this is not a problem and the resolution is the problem.

For the few places where the scenario at top makes sense (auto-detection on install would be nice for this), button sizes should be reduced, text should be reduced, and the bottom panel shrunk in height.

Next in line, we realize the top panel is mostly indicators which theoretically have popups which will appear over the windows. The links on the upper toolbar are quick-launch-like, and the drop down menus are mostly unnecessary when applications that are screen-filling are necessary. So, the top menubar is always behind any windows in a full-screen mode, but retains its solid shape for smaller windows. To avert frustrations when trying to use the full screen with multiple applications, lock points on the screen (user customizable) should allow an undefined number of applications to lock to a full screen view (taking up the full screen as a group, moving as a normal window would, or locking AeroSnap-esque, based on preference or per-window setting). Other non-full-screen applications, of course, would still be visible.

Possible solution.

There are a few points I'd like to make: Most widescreens are 18.5 inches or greater. Many are also high-resolution. Lower-resolution screens are often 4:3, where this is not a problem and the resolution is the problem. For the few places where the scenario at top makes sense (auto-detection on install would be nice for this), button sizes should be reduced, text should be reduced, and the bottom panel shrunk in height. Next in line, we realize the top panel is mostly indicators which theoretically have popups which will appear over the windows. The links on the upper toolbar are quick-launch-like, and the drop down menus are mostly unnecessary when applications that are screen-filling are necessary. So, the top menubar is always behind any windows in a full-screen mode, but retains its solid shape for smaller windows. To avert frustrations when trying to use the full screen with multiple applications, lock points on the screen (user customizable) should allow an undefined number of applications to lock to a full screen view (taking up the full screen as a group, moving as a normal window would, or locking AeroSnap-esque, based on preference or per-window setting). Other non-full-screen applications, of course, would still be visible. Possible solution. Edit: Forgot to mention GnomeShell. GnomeShell will make the top bar superfluous. Look up GnomeShell if you want more details.

Written by annex666 the 26 Mar 10 at 12:31.

I.e. implement the exact same functionality as that in the Hide Menubar plug-in for Firefox - the menubar is hidden until the user presses the Alt key; it is then rehidden when the user presses Alt again.

I.e. implement the exact same functionality as that in the Hide Menubar plug-in for Firefox - the menubar is hidden until the user presses the Alt key; it is then rehidden when the user presses Alt again.

Written by Liso22 the 27 Mar 10 at 18:37.

I've been dealing with the same problem for some time, and mostly considering I use awn that takes more or less thrice the space of a regular panel and that I have a laptop screen. I think the solution should be to add an optional applet which will normally show the regular Ubuntu menu bar and when an application is running it will switch to show the Ubuntu quick menu icon and the application title bar, this will be totally optional so it can hurt nobody and will benefit both the users who prefer a windows like behavior than those who prefer a mac interface. This is the mockup of how it should look when an application is running and the space that will be saved.

[url=http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/134b0462fd.png[/img][/url]">http:/ /www.freeimagehosting.net/][img]http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/134b0462 fd.png[/img][/url]

I've been dealing with the same problem for some time, and mostly considering I use awn that takes more or less thrice the space of a regular panel and that I have a laptop screen. I think the solution should be to add an optional applet which will normally show the regular Ubuntu menu bar and when an application is running it will switch to show the Ubuntu quick menu icon and the application title bar, this will be totally optional so it can hurt nobody and will benefit both the users who prefer a windows like behavior than those who prefer a mac interface. This is the mockup of how it should look when an application is running and the space that will be saved. [url=http://www.freeimagehosting.net/][img]http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/134b0462fd.png[/img][/url]

Written by Liso22 the 27 Mar 10 at 18:49.

I've been dealing with the same problem for some time, and mostly considering I use awn that takes more or less thrice the space of a regular panel and that I have a laptop screen. I think the solution should be to add an optional applet which will normally show the regular Ubuntu menu bar and when an application is running it will switch to show the Ubuntu quick menu icon and the application title bar, this will be totally optional so it can hurt nobody and will benefit both the users who prefer a windows like behavior than those who prefer a mac interface. This is the mockup of how it should look when an application is running and the space that will be saved. (I don't know how to make the image show I'll just paste a couple of links click any)

http://i40.tinypic.com/2eeh7v7.jpg

http://www.freeimagehosting.net/image.php?134b0462fd.png

http://www.freeimagehosting.net/image.php?134b0462fd.png>http://www.freeima gehosting.net/uploads/th.134b0462fd.png alt="Free Image Hosting by FreeImageHosting.net">

I've been dealing with the same problem for some time, and mostly considering I use awn that takes more or less thrice the space of a regular panel and that I have a laptop screen. I think the solution should be to add an optional applet which will normally show the regular Ubuntu menu bar and when an application is running it will switch to show the Ubuntu quick menu icon and the application title bar, this will be totally optional so it can hurt nobody and will benefit both the users who prefer a windows like behavior than those who prefer a mac interface. This is the mockup of how it should look when an application is running and the space that will be saved. (I don't know how to make the image show I'll just paste a couple of links click any) http://i40.tinypic.com/2eeh7v7.jpg http://www.freeimagehosting.net/image.php?134b0462fd.png <a href=http://www.freeimagehosting.net/image.php?134b0462fd.png><img src=http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/th.134b0462fd.png alt="Free Image Hosting by FreeImageHosting.net"></a>

Written by ave2 the 29 Mar 10 at 11:31.

start looking at ways to use the horizontal space for menus- look at blender 2.5 as a good example of this...

start looking at ways to use the horizontal space for menus- look at blender 2.5 as a good example of this...

Written by Pfanne the 31 Mar 10 at 00:49.

Just use Docky as the lower panel.
Yeah i know Ubuntu will look alot like Mac OS, but who cares?
Apple did some good design choices with their desktop. Why shouldnt we copy them?

Just use Docky as the lower panel. Yeah i know Ubuntu will look alot like Mac OS, but who cares? Apple did some good design choices with their desktop. Why shouldnt we copy them?

Written by geoff.m the 31 Mar 10 at 01:40.

1. The titlebar and menubar are merged. we need to see always the window titles in order to see quickly what they are at all times, but not the menus. menus appear over windowtitle when mouse hovers around it.

2. The toolbars also need to be accessed often, but they have little need to be seen all the time. therefore they could just dock under the titlemenubar.

2.a. in the case of browsers, the url could appear next to the window title

Then we would have 1 bars instead of 3, saving about 80 pixels in height that can be now used for actuel software and content space.

1. The titlebar and menubar are merged. we need to see always the window titles in order to see quickly what they are at all times, but not the menus. menus appear over windowtitle when mouse hovers around it. 2. The toolbars also need to be accessed often, but they have little need to be seen all the time. therefore they could just dock under the titlemenubar. 2.a. in the case of browsers, the url could appear next to the window title Then we would have 1 bars instead of 3, saving about 80 pixels in height that can be now used for actuel software and content space.

Written by Duncan J Murray the 1 Apr 10 at 20:11.

Anyone who has used Workbench would remember the right-click and hold would bring up the menu over the title bar.

To implement this into Ubuntu I would suggest that the menu bar is removed, but would appear, temporarily replacing the title bar when the right mouse button is clicked and held (with the selection being made on the release of the right mouse button).

An alternative would be that a single right click would transform the title bar into the menu, and then you can navigate the menu as you normally would, left clicking to select.

This method does not add any extra key presses or mouse clicks in accessing the menu, which I think is crucial, but will save one horizontal bar of vertical space.

Anyone who has used Workbench would remember the right-click and hold would bring up the menu over the title bar. To implement this into Ubuntu I would suggest that the menu bar is removed, but would appear, temporarily replacing the title bar when the right mouse button is clicked and held (with the selection being made on the release of the right mouse button). An alternative would be that a single right click would transform the title bar into the menu, and then you can navigate the menu as you normally would, left clicking to select. This method does not add any extra key presses or mouse clicks in accessing the menu, which I think is crucial, but will save one horizontal bar of vertical space.

Written by DadsAndGrads the 3 Apr 10 at 21:39.

In the new OS X clone style:



This configuration keeps all the current information. If a window is made too small then first the title could be truncated then the menus if need be.

<img src="http://img694.imageshack.us/img694/3367/ambicompact.png" /> <br /> In the new OS X clone style: <img src="http://img708.imageshack.us/img708/9748/ambientcompactosxclone.png" /> <br /> This configuration keeps all the current information. If a window is made too small then first the title could be truncated then the menus if need be.

Written by jerome.bouat the 4 Apr 10 at 14:08.

What about putting the current top panel on the left on the desktop ?

The "Applications", "Shortcuts" and "System" menu could be replaced by icons.

The vertical position of panel at the left can lead to less area consumption than the top position of the same panel.

Currently, a 16/10 form ratio screen makes 17/10 form ratio of the maximized windows.

Therefore the panel at the left would make the maximized windows form ratio like ~16/10 instead of 17/10 currently. The horizontal form ratio is mostly used for watching movies in fullscreen. Thus the ~16/10 ratio of the maximized windows would make the use of the firefox and
openoffice easier but not impact the other applications.

What about putting the current top panel on the left on the desktop ? The "Applications", "Shortcuts" and "System" menu could be replaced by icons. The vertical position of panel at the left can lead to less area consumption than the top position of the same panel. Currently, a 16/10 form ratio screen makes 17/10 form ratio of the maximized windows. Therefore the panel at the left would make the maximized windows form ratio like ~16/10 instead of 17/10 currently. The horizontal form ratio is mostly used for watching movies in fullscreen. Thus the ~16/10 ratio of the maximized windows would make the use of the firefox and openoffice easier but not impact the other applications.

Written by la_serpe the 7 Apr 10 at 22:51.

Think about it for a moment. How often do you use Help and About menu for instance? What about the Tabs menu? Isnt it easier to use mouse? Bookmarks and Go have basically the same function. Instead of File you can simply right click on the blank surface. This redundancy isn't only annoying, but it's also confusing. It has been inherited from Windows 3.1 I guess. Let's abandon it finally!

Think about it for a moment. How often do you use Help and About menu for instance? What about the Tabs menu? Isnt it easier to use mouse? Bookmarks and Go have basically the same function. Instead of File you can simply right click on the blank surface. This redundancy isn't only annoying, but it's also confusing. It has been inherited from Windows 3.1 I guess. Let's abandon it finally!

Written by wenex the 9 Jun 10 at 12:04.

For the application you can normaly show or hide statusbar etc.

You should be abele to have there:

show/hide menubar or menu-button or menu-buttons (=for each entry a button; file, edit, view...)
use/not use global menu bar in the panel
merge/unmerge statusbar, titlebar
etc.
preferences for each programm

For the application you can normaly show or hide statusbar etc. You should be abele to have there: show/hide menubar or menu-button or menu-buttons (=for each entry a button; file, edit, view...) use/not use global menu bar in the panel merge/unmerge statusbar, titlebar etc. preferences for each programm

Written by wenex the 7 Jul 10 at 19:47.

a compiz effect that "hide" titlebar, so it looks like the other boarders. When the mousepointer is over the top window boarder, it expands to the titlebar.

give some options to choose hide and unhide delay and how it scales, if its a maximized window ...

merge titlebar and menubar into a single bar with the option to have a menu button in the titlebar.

a compiz effect that "hide" titlebar, so it looks like the other boarders. When the mousepointer is over the top window boarder, it expands to the titlebar. give some options to choose hide and unhide delay and how it scales, if its a maximized window ... merge titlebar and menubar into a single bar with the option to have a menu button in the titlebar.

Written by Lachu the 19 Dec 10 at 10:13.

Titlebars should been hidden, when mouse cursor are above of active/foreground window(having keyboard focus). It should appear again, when some button(like alt) pressed or mouse cursor are outside foreground window. Titlebar isn't part of active window(let's say).
Also titlebar of active window would appear when mouse react on top-corner of window.

In most times we don't need a titlebar at all. We've used it only to move window around or changing active window.
Dialog(like progress dialogs) contains a lot of useful information about which progress it observe... Conclusion is: we need a titlebar only to change active window and drag window around.

When window is maximized we should have top corner displayed, but it will be very small. When window is maximized there's way to display titlebar. On window is foreground we only move cursor at top of it or outside and we can drag it. When mouse is placed outside foreground window, we can also see titlebar of other window.

Titlebars should been hidden, when mouse cursor are above of active/foreground window(having keyboard focus). It should appear again, when some button(like alt) pressed or mouse cursor are outside foreground window. Titlebar isn't part of active window(let's say). Also titlebar of active window would appear when mouse react on top-corner of window. In most times we don't need a titlebar at all. We've used it only to move window around or changing active window. Dialog(like progress dialogs) contains a lot of useful information about which progress it observe... Conclusion is: we need a titlebar only to change active window and drag window around. When window is maximized we should have top corner displayed, but it will be very small. When window is maximized there's way to display titlebar. On window is foreground we only move cursor at top of it or outside and we can drag it. When mouse is placed outside foreground window, we can also see titlebar of other window.

Written by ester4 the 31 Dec 10 at 17:07.

Similar idea to this brainstorm: http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/26826/

Allow users to customize the Titlebar by adding icons and menus to the Titlebar to decrease the need for toolbars below the Titlebar.

Similar idea to this brainstorm: http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/26826/ Allow users to customize the Titlebar by adding icons and menus to the Titlebar to decrease the need for toolbars below the Titlebar.

Written by doyousina the 10 Jan 11 at 21:01.

There's already one project in google code which provides a Mac-like menubar: http://code.google.com/p/gnome2-globalmenu/
Although it doesn't works on firefox and openoffice (applications i use on a daily basis).

There's already one project in google code which provides a Mac-like menubar: http://code.google.com/p/gnome2-globalmenu/ Although it doesn't works on firefox and openoffice (applications i use on a daily basis).

Written by lotif the 20 Aug 10 at 19:51.

A little warning and a red sign next to the connection indicator means a lot in usability.

A picture is worth a 1000 words.

A little warning and a red sign next to the connection indicator means a lot in usability. A picture is worth a 1000 words. <a href="http://desmond.yfrog.com/Himg59/scaled.php?tn=0&server=59&filename=capturadetela1y.png&xsize=640&ysize=640"><img src="http://desmond.yfrog.com/Himg59/scaled.php?tn=0&server=59&filename=capturadetela1y.png&xsize=640&ysize=640" border="0" /></a>

Written by Oxwivi the 24 Aug 10 at 08:16.

A non-technical and standard user will not understand what to do in such a situation. A fix button bay help, but if it doesn't, a help link/button would go a long way to solve the problem.

A non-technical and standard user will not understand what to do in such a situation. A fix button bay help, but if it doesn't, a help link/button would go a long way to solve the problem.

Written by DaedalusPrime the 24 Aug 10 at 11:58.

Clicking the "FIX" button would attempt to change the IP address automatically by 1) if DHCP is enabled, renew the IP, or 2) if not DHCP, perform a search for an IP that appears to be open on the current subnet, using ipwatchd or a similar mechanism.

Clicking the "FIX" button would attempt to change the IP address automatically by 1) if DHCP is enabled, renew the IP, or 2) if not DHCP, perform a search for an IP that appears to be open on the current subnet, using ipwatchd or a similar mechanism.

Written by lotif the 24 Aug 10 at 13:27.

As some pointed out, there's already an app out there which makes the job pretty well: IPwatchD. Let's make it a default app!



The only drawback I see is that the warnings aren't any further than this message. It should add an icon below the connection icon, like in Solution #1.

To install it, go to http://ipwatchd.sourceforge.net/ or just search for ipwatch on synaptic.

As some pointed out, there's already an app out there which makes the job pretty well: IPwatchD. Let's make it a default app! <a href="http://a.imageshack.us/img715/8051/capturadetelapb.png"><img src="http://a.imageshack.us/img715/8051/capturadetelapb.png" border="0" /></a> The only drawback I see is that the warnings aren't any further than this message. It should add an icon below the connection icon, like in Solution #1. To install it, go to http://ipwatchd.sourceforge.net/ or just search for ipwatch on synaptic.

Written by ivanpd the 30 Aug 10 at 14:42.

I think part of the Ubuntu philosophy is that the user will be provided with a reasonable solution that works in most cases by default. Instead of complaining and allowing the user to fix it, I think the right approach would be:
- If DHCP is enabled, request a new IP with no user intervention.
- If DHCP is not enabled, allow the user to fix it automatically (as described in #3, no-dhcp) or to change the configuration by hand.

I don't have the time to draw anything (help is welcome to show this idea), but something similar to the pic in #1 with the text "Enable automatic fix or change settings by hand" would do.

Regarding the design, I think "Enable automatic fix" and "change settings by hand" could both have the appearance of web links (instead of buttons).

I think part of the Ubuntu philosophy is that the user will be provided with a reasonable solution that works in most cases by default. Instead of complaining and allowing the user to fix it, I think the right approach would be: - If DHCP is enabled, request a new IP with no user intervention. - If DHCP is not enabled, allow the user to fix it automatically (as described in #3, no-dhcp) or to change the configuration by hand. I don't have the time to draw anything (help is welcome to show this idea), but something similar to the pic in #1 with the text "Enable automatic fix or change settings by hand" would do. Regarding the design, I think "Enable automatic fix" and "change settings by hand" could both have the appearance of web links (instead of buttons).

Written by amay82 the 1 Sep 10 at 14:23.

If someone picks an IP address manually, (s)he should know what (s)he is doing, so a generalised "network misconfiguration" message + disabling the network should be enough. The rest can be seen in the system logs.

If someone picks an IP address manually, (s)he should know what (s)he is doing, so a generalised "network misconfiguration" message + disabling the network should be enough. The rest can be seen in the system logs.

Written by sandys the 27 Feb 10 at 10:54.

gnome-power-manager already has information about the battery in your system. However, charging is always-on.

Instead power-manager should charge only according to rules (similar to Microsoft ACPI-compliant control method battery tool)

e.g. bug528543 in gnome-power-manager

gnome-power-manager already has information about the battery in your system. However, charging is always-on. Instead power-manager should charge only according to rules (similar to Microsoft ACPI-compliant control method battery tool) e.g. bug528543 in gnome-power-manager

Written by specialcowboy the 14 Mar 10 at 08:54.

I am relatively new to Ubuntu and I understand that in Lucid there are plans or already an implementation for better power management. As I haven't seen the alphas myself I thought I would suggest a few things. Sorry if these are already being implemented and this is redundant. This site: http://salcher.posterous.com/?tag=ubuntu suggests a few ways to optimize batter life using Powertop and manually configuring files in /etc/laptop-mode/conf.d/. I think it would be great if there was a GUI front end for this that allowed adjusting of the settings and creating of various profiles (rather than editing .conf files directly). Similar to the Power Management functionality included on Acer laptops (ie clocking down the processor, disabling card buses, USB, ethernet, wireless, etc.).

I am relatively new to Ubuntu and I understand that in Lucid there are plans or already an implementation for better power management. As I haven't seen the alphas myself I thought I would suggest a few things. Sorry if these are already being implemented and this is redundant. This site: http://salcher.posterous.com/?tag=ubuntu suggests a few ways to optimize batter life using Powertop and manually configuring files in /etc/laptop-mode/conf.d/. I think it would be great if there was a GUI front end for this that allowed adjusting of the settings and creating of various profiles (rather than editing .conf files directly). Similar to the Power Management functionality included on Acer laptops (ie clocking down the processor, disabling card buses, USB, ethernet, wireless, etc.).

Written by mulenmar the 18 Mar 10 at 04:52.

Something as tied to hardware as controlling when the battery charges and when it cuts off should be built into the Linux kernel itself, not tied to a desktop enviroment!

Something as tied to hardware as controlling when the battery charges and when it cuts off should be built into the Linux kernel itself, not tied to a desktop enviroment!

Written by rcheetah the 6 Jan 12 at 11:42.

Let the software look up duplicates for you.
The program could get you a list of contacts with the same or nearly the same name, and let you connect or disconnect them. It works fine on HTC Sense, and could also on gnome.
http://www.pspmyspace.com/.a/6a00d8341c5e5f53ef01538e0c4388970b-320wi

Let the software look up duplicates for you. The program could get you a list of contacts with the same or nearly the same name, and let you connect or disconnect them. It works fine on HTC Sense, and could also on gnome. http://www.pspmyspace.com/.a/6a00d8341c5e5f53ef01538e0c4388970b-320wi

Written by mydoghasworms the 22 Jun 10 at 18:32.

A software package should stand out from other kinds of archives, so the user can see that this is an installation package containing software. After all, when you double-click it, it opens GDebi GTK, and not Archive Manager!

A software package should stand out from other kinds of archives, so the user can see that this is an installation package containing software. After all, when you double-click it, it opens GDebi GTK, and not Archive Manager!

Written by mydoghasworms the 24 Jun 10 at 05:15.

It would be nice if every package could include its own icon, which would display in Nautilus, and if it has no icon, then some default must be displayed. This would be especially nice for third-party vendors providing software (e.g. Google, Skype, VirtualBox, etc.)
This is of course an optional specification, and if the package includes it, and the file manager supports it, it would show the icon.

-- UPDATE --
As per comment below, this is now a reality: https://launchpad.net/deb-thumbnailer

It would be nice if every package could include its own icon, which would display in Nautilus, and if it has no icon, then some default must be displayed. This would be especially nice for third-party vendors providing software (e.g. Google, Skype, VirtualBox, etc.) This is of course an optional specification, and if the package includes it, and the file manager supports it, it would show the icon. -- UPDATE -- As per comment below, this is now a reality: https://launchpad.net/deb-thumbnailer

Written by stoffel the 24 Jun 10 at 19:48.

The icon should be similar to the Software Center icon. This will hint the user that this is a software package that will install a new application.

Maybe it can be the Software Center icon with a (big) green arrow.

The icon should be similar to the Software Center icon. This will hint the user that this is a software package that will install a new application. Maybe it can be the Software Center icon with a (big) green arrow.

Written by lvxferre the 1 Jul 10 at 19:56.

Mockup icon: http://img812.imageshack.us/img812/218/debinstpack.png

The mockup I made is horrible, I know - please, look at the concept behind it.

The icon is still a package, somewhat similar to the old icons. The Debian logo is still there (it's .deb after all), but it should be bigger and with a more contrasting color.

The package is open. Inside it's a floppy - while few of us still use floppy disks, most associate it with "install". The green arrow in the floppy hints "download".

So, an icon like this tells us: "You downloaded this file, There's a program inside. You can install the program if you want." Exactly what we expect from a .deb .

Mockup icon: http://img812.imageshack.us/img812/218/debinstpack.png The mockup I made is horrible, I know - please, look at the concept behind it. The icon is still a package, somewhat similar to the old icons. The Debian logo is still there (it's .deb after all), but it should be bigger and with a more contrasting color. The package is open. Inside it's a floppy - while few of us still use floppy disks, most associate it with "install". The green arrow in the floppy hints "download". So, an icon like this tells us: "You downloaded this file, There's a program inside. You can install the program if you want." Exactly what we expect from a .deb .

Written by eld1e6o the 4 Jul 10 at 03:31.

Use different icons for software packages
Also use debthumbnailer which puts different icons for different type of software

See https://launchpad.net/~deb-thumbnailer-team/+archive/ppa

See images here: http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2010/06/that-was-quick-new-deb-thumbnailer.html

Use different icons for software packages Also use debthumbnailer which puts different icons for different type of software See https://launchpad.net/~deb-thumbnailer-team/+archive/ppa See images here: http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2010/06/that-was-quick-new-deb-thumbnailer.html

Written by Stancel_Spencer the 10 Jul 10 at 09:07.

That looks like a box. So it is perfect for software packages. The metaphor is great, it is like the package that comes in the box that you order and you open it up.

Archives, like zip files, have often been shown in other OS as a folder with a zipper on it. You could also use a filing cabinet for the icon. But my point is, if anything needs to change, it's the archive icons.

That looks like a box. So it is perfect for software packages. The metaphor is great, it is like the package that comes in the box that you order and you open it up. Archives, like zip files, have often been shown in other OS as a folder with a zipper on it. You could also use a filing cabinet for the icon. But my point is, if anything needs to change, it's the archive icons.

Written by cfg the 11 Jul 10 at 10:45.

Add a emblems on deb(rmp) package denoting installation.

Add a emblems on deb(rmp) package denoting installation.

Written by cfg the 11 Jul 10 at 10:52.

Add a emblems on deb(rmp) package denoting depending on what packages are not included in standard ubuntu, and maybe need download other packages.

Add a emblems on deb(rmp) package denoting depending on what packages are not included in standard ubuntu, and maybe need download other packages.

Written by mydoghasworms the 13 Jul 10 at 20:15.

The current package has the Debian logo on it. Replace it with the Ubuntu logo (and then make it look less like a box).

The current package has the Debian logo on it. Replace it with the Ubuntu logo (and then make it look less like a box).

Written by lotif the 21 Jul 10 at 16:37.

Deb Thumbnailer ( https://launchpad.net/deb-thumbnailer ) is a great solution. Why not make it a default app? It needs some improvement, but once it becomes default, more eyes will turn to it and it will certainly look better.

Deb Thumbnailer ( https://launchpad.net/deb-thumbnailer ) is a great solution. Why not make it a default app? It needs some improvement, but once it becomes default, more eyes will turn to it and it will certainly look better. <a href="http://img839.imageshack.us/img839/4395/capturadetelaarchivesna.png"> <img src="http://img839.imageshack.us/img839/4395/capturadetelaarchivesna.png" /> </a>

Written by connel the 21 May 10 at 21:13.

Being able to sync all my stuff to my phone and computer would be AMAZING.

Maemo has Firefox and Tomboy already so syncing at least some things should be relatively easy.

I also see supporting mobile devices as a great way to get one over Dropbox ;)

Being able to sync all my stuff to my phone and computer would be AMAZING. Maemo has Firefox and Tomboy already so syncing at least some things should be relatively easy. I also see supporting mobile devices as a great way to get one over Dropbox ;)

Written by readmanr the 6 Mar 10 at 21:00.

Move the buttons back over to the top right for the final Ubuntu 10.04 release.

Move the buttons back over to the top right for the final Ubuntu 10.04 release.

Written by Akerbos the 6 Mar 10 at 21:38.

I think it is most intuitive if the buttons are ordered the same in relation to the window center ("To close, click the outermost button"), so

Right: min-max-close

relates to

Left: close-max-min

I think it is most intuitive if the buttons are ordered the same in relation to the window center ("To close, click the outermost button"), so Right: min-max-close relates to Left: close-max-min

Written by jeffd1830 the 7 Mar 10 at 08:56.

I think having the buttons on both sides would also be a viable option. I understand that this would detract visually from the simplicity, but maybe if the buttons were subdued until the mouse hovers over the bar?

(I feel less than confident about this solution, but thought it needed mentioning.)

I think having the buttons on both sides would also be a viable option. I understand that this would detract visually from the simplicity, but maybe if the buttons were subdued until the mouse hovers over the bar? (I feel less than confident about this solution, but thought it needed mentioning.)

Written by Long Lazuli the 7 Mar 10 at 11:34.

In xubuntu, user cas can choose where are the button on the titlebar.

In xubuntu, user cas can choose where are the button on the titlebar.

Written by la_serpe the 7 Mar 10 at 16:29.

It can be movable so the user could change it intuitively

It can be movable so the user could change it intuitively

Written by Vlad_Alfredov the 8 Mar 10 at 11:13.

Well the title pretty much says it...Default is to have it on right, but to include an option in "Change Desktop Background" >> Theme >> Customize, to move the buttons to a user defined position.

Well the title pretty much says it...Default is to have it on right, but to include an option in "Change Desktop Background" >> Theme >> Customize, to move the buttons to a user defined position.

Written by marvo the 10 Mar 10 at 10:28.

There are some themes that look better when the buttons are placed on the left side (like Ambiance, Radiance and Gorilla) and there are some themes that look better with the buttons being on the right side (like Glider, Human, Clearlooks or SphereCrystal).

So i propose to set the default alignment depending on the chosen theme and make it easily switchable.

The current way to change the alignment of the buttons back to the right by typing
gconftool-2 --type string --set /apps/metacity/general/button_layout "menu:minimize,maximize,close"
is a bit tedious.

There are some themes that look better when the buttons are placed on the left side (like Ambiance, Radiance and Gorilla) and there are some themes that look better with the buttons being on the right side (like Glider, Human, Clearlooks or SphereCrystal). So i propose to set the default alignment depending on the chosen theme and make it easily switchable. The current way to change the alignment of the buttons back to the right by typing gconftool-2 --type string --set /apps/metacity/general/button_layout "menu:minimize,maximize,close" is a bit tedious.

Written by Lex the 10 Mar 10 at 11:04.

Put Close button in the corner - depending on chosen solution will be left or right corner or window.

Put Close button in the corner - depending on chosen solution will be left or right corner or window.

Written by euxneks the 11 Mar 10 at 01:31.

I think that Minimize and Maximize are more similar to the menu anyway, so put them on the left, and put the close button on the right, this harkens back to the days of old Unix and I think would still allow the theme to stand out.

I think that Minimize and Maximize are more similar to the menu anyway, so put them on the left, and put the close button on the right, this harkens back to the days of old Unix and I think would still allow the theme to stand out.

Written by i386dx the 14 Mar 10 at 12:50.

Move the Min, Max and Close-buttons back to the right.

Be able to close a window by double-clicking the window-icon at the left. This is much faster than clicking the icon and selecting 'Close' in the menu.

Move the Min, Max and Close-buttons back to the right. Be able to close a window by double-clicking the window-icon at the left. This is much faster than clicking the icon and selecting 'Close' in the menu.

Written by MoebusNet the 15 Mar 10 at 01:04.

Rationale: In VirtualBox without Guest Additions, the right-hand side of the desktop and the lower part of the desktop are not visible until you scroll. Having the above-mentioned buttons on the top-left side of the window by default makes them accessible when (not if) Guest Additions do not work/are unavailable or when scrolling for whatever reason does not work. This is especially true for development versions.

I _am_ in favor of choice, so this should be fairly easy for a user to change (preferably by GUI) to right, left or both.

Just my opinion.

Rationale: In VirtualBox without Guest Additions, the right-hand side of the desktop and the lower part of the desktop are not visible until you scroll. Having the above-mentioned buttons on the top-left side of the window by default makes them accessible when (not if) Guest Additions do not work/are unavailable or when scrolling for whatever reason does not work. This is especially true for development versions. I _am_ in favor of choice, so this should be fairly easy for a user to change (preferably by GUI) to right, left or both. Just my opinion.

Written by neblogas the 16 Mar 10 at 15:58.

Because Mark said that in 10.10 the windows will have something new in the right side, but now, there is no need to change the buttons, and this is LTS release! in 10.10 when you will finish the new mysteriuos window features on the right then you can put the buttons on the left. As I said, there is no need now to change. Its an LTS release and the people and companies won't change until the next LTS, so there won't be for them new mysteriuos windows features on the right!

Because Mark said that in 10.10 the windows will have something new in the right side, but now, there is no need to change the buttons, and this is LTS release! in 10.10 when you will finish the new mysteriuos window features on the right then you can put the buttons on the left. As I said, there is no need now to change. Its an LTS release and the people and companies won't change until the next LTS, so there won't be for them new mysteriuos windows features on the right!

Written by TrueSongMedia the 16 Mar 10 at 17:16.

Yes the button location can be changed via Terminal, but for the average user...the Terminal can be a bit scary. I think it would be appropriate to place a simple option in the Appearance Preferences window.

Something like this:
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/40647960/window_controls_position_gui.png

Yes the button location can be changed via Terminal, but for the average user...the Terminal can be a bit scary. I think it would be appropriate to place a simple option in the Appearance Preferences window. Something like this: http://launchpadlibrarian.net/40647960/window_controls_position_gui.png

Written by ichido the 17 Mar 10 at 17:53.

Move the Top Bar to the Right Side-Vertical Bar and the Bottom Bar would be on the Left Side Vertical.
This would allow for more Vertical Space.
The user would be able to Swap the Left Bar with the Right Bar and also the Size/Thickness of the Bars.
Applications could maintain the Top Bar or a Side or a Bottom bar for their Window.

Move the Top Bar to the Right Side-Vertical Bar and the Bottom Bar would be on the Left Side Vertical. This would allow for more Vertical Space. The user would be able to Swap the Left Bar with the Right Bar and also the Size/Thickness of the Bars. Applications could maintain the Top Bar or a Side or a Bottom bar for their Window.

Written by Wiplash4 the 19 Mar 10 at 12:17.

Hello
I would like to add one idea: Replace the menubar (File, Edit, View, etc.), which can be found in every window, with an icon and put that icon into the titlebar. It worked out for my terminal.
Regards

Hello I would like to add one idea: Replace the menubar (File, Edit, View, etc.), which can be found in every window, with an icon and put that icon into the titlebar. It worked out for my terminal. Regards

Written by Wiplash4 the 19 Mar 10 at 16:40.

I figured out that the status bar is only filled up to 1 / 4. Why not put those messages displayed in the status bar in the title bar?

I figured out that the status bar is only filled up to 1 / 4. Why not put those messages displayed in the status bar in the title bar?

Written by a_pirard the 20 Mar 10 at 03:14.

Modify all applications to be consistent with Lucid : move all close buttons to the left, for example, OpenOffice document close, Firefox tab close, File Explorer side pane close, etc... etc...

Modify all applications to be consistent with Lucid : move all close buttons to the left, for example, OpenOffice document close, Firefox tab close, File Explorer side pane close, etc... etc...

Written by luojie-dune the 20 Mar 10 at 21:01.

Instead of corner, make it POSSIBLE to place buttons in the MIDDLE.

I knew there is no such a solution according to "ewmh".

But, I guess most people have their cursor in the middle of a window for most of the time they using it.

Instead of corner, make it POSSIBLE to place buttons in the MIDDLE. I knew there is no such a solution according to "ewmh". But, I guess most people have their cursor in the middle of a window for most of the time they using it.

Written by LukeM33P the 25 Mar 10 at 01:13.

Compiz managers and decorators are already effective at options. Placing the Metacity and Kwin options in Emerald Decorator manager, which would be preinstalled, along with CCSM (or a custom replacement) would be the solution, with CCSM/replacement simplified to look like (in functionality and basic organization) the KDE settings manager, but using default schemes and such, of course.

For KDE users, alongside the CCSM/replacement, the interface would be integrated into the System Settings, just like the traditional settings.

The reason I propose this is because options, while not easy to find and configure (and why I propose the reorg) are very powerful. Setting up Metacity and KWin to show up as options and adding the appropriate settings, if necessary, seems to make sense (to me) as a long-term solution. The operating system needs to seem as encompassing as KDE or even more so, and combining these options so that the system is even more universal would be a step towards this.

An addition to the application of managing the system title bar like the KDE or GNOME dashboards would be similarly useful, and may be all of this potential solution that should be used. Default should stay in line with last-gen human theme, even if the colors and buttons look different.

Compiz managers and decorators are already effective at options. Placing the Metacity and Kwin options in Emerald Decorator manager, which would be preinstalled, along with CCSM (or a custom replacement) would be the solution, with CCSM/replacement simplified to look like (in functionality and basic organization) the KDE settings manager, but using default schemes and such, of course. For KDE users, alongside the CCSM/replacement, the interface would be integrated into the System Settings, just like the traditional settings. The reason I propose this is because options, while not easy to find and configure (and why I propose the reorg) are very powerful. Setting up Metacity and KWin to show up as options and adding the appropriate settings, if necessary, seems to make sense (to me) as a long-term solution. The operating system needs to seem as encompassing as KDE or even more so, and combining these options so that the system is even more universal would be a step towards this. An addition to the application of managing the system title bar like the KDE or GNOME dashboards would be similarly useful, and may be all of this potential solution that should be used. Default should stay in line with last-gen human theme, even if the colors and buttons look different.

Written by 2cute4u the 25 Mar 10 at 03:37.

XFCE has for many years had a very easy convient way to configure the placment of titlebar buttons. See.http://www.xfce.org/documentation/4.2/manuals/xfwm4#wm-settings
It would not be too difficult to add somethng like this to gnome; that way everyone can be happy.

XFCE has for many years had a very easy convient way to configure the placment of titlebar buttons. See.http://www.xfce.org/documentation/4.2/manuals/xfwm4#wm-settings It would not be too difficult to add somethng like this to gnome; that way everyone can be happy.

Written by MisterLinOx the 26 Mar 10 at 21:52.

Have the min, max, close buttons on both sides of the title bar, but hide them. The only time they should show is on mouseover of the bar, but depending on which side you mouseover decides which side the buttons show.

For example, cursor closer to the left side? Mouse over the top-left and the buttons will appear. Vice-versa for the right side.

Have the min, max, close buttons on both sides of the title bar, but hide them. The only time they should show is on mouseover of the bar, but depending on which side you mouseover decides which side the buttons show. For example, cursor closer to the left side? Mouse over the top-left and the buttons will appear. Vice-versa for the right side.

Written by emucosmos the 27 Mar 10 at 03:11.

make apear a messagebox in the begining of the instalation asking where do we want to have those buttons, coz personally I love the new mac style, but considering the ubuntu objectives, it's a good option to let the users choice.

make apear a messagebox in the begining of the instalation asking where do we want to have those buttons, coz personally I love the new mac style, but considering the ubuntu objectives, it's a good option to let the users choice.

Written by darkham the 29 Mar 10 at 08:23.

Let user chose on the First Run, after installation.

Let user chose on the First Run, after installation.

Written by tomjb24 the 3 Apr 10 at 09:25.

Hover over the window border, click the middle mouse button, scroll to choose (close, minimise, maximise)

Hover over the window border, click the middle mouse button, scroll to choose (close, minimise, maximise)

Written by rrnwexec the 3 Apr 10 at 20:26.

Create a version of Ubuntu for those who like the (standard) Ubuntu desktop's "look and feel" just the way it is. Solicit Mark's (SABDFL) endorsement.

Enjoy how growingly quaint it feels as time passes by!

Create a version of Ubuntu for those who like the (standard) Ubuntu desktop's "look and feel" just the way it is. Solicit Mark's (SABDFL) endorsement. Enjoy how growingly quaint it feels as time passes by!

Written by jase21 the 4 Apr 10 at 11:54.

Make Mac styled menu bar which is available in KDE. The current active windows menu appears on the bar. So no accidental closing of windows.

Or move the window control buttons to the right.

Make Mac styled menu bar which is available in KDE. The current active windows menu appears on the bar. So no accidental closing of windows. Or move the window control buttons to the right.

Written by Jon Monreal the 17 Apr 10 at 23:49.

Please note that this is not an idea for the imminent release of 10.04, but would be better included in the next update ISO.

Experienced users already know how to change the buttons back to the original location, so server installations shouldn't be so much of a problem.

For absolute beginner users, the first slide in the installation slideshow could be one explaining the benefits of having the buttons on the left side and asking the user to choose what they could like to do.

In the minimal install, it would also be easy to add a simple option (most users using the minimal install are probably fairly experienced).

This would solve the real issue here: beginners possibly not using Ubuntu at all because it changes something.

Please note that this is not an idea for the imminent release of 10.04, but would be better included in the next update ISO. Experienced users already know how to change the buttons back to the original location, so server installations shouldn't be so much of a problem. For absolute beginner users, the first slide in the installation slideshow could be one explaining the benefits of having the buttons on the left side and asking the user to choose what they could like to do. In the minimal install, it would also be easy to add a simple option (most users using the minimal install are probably fairly experienced). This would solve the real issue here: beginners possibly not using Ubuntu at all because it changes something.

Written by land_grab the 5 May 10 at 23:23.

I found this extremely easy fix how to move the min, max, and close buttons back to the right side.


http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/13535/move-window-buttons-back-to-the-right-in-u buntu-10.04/

Even I was able to follow these directions and make it happen!

I found this extremely easy fix how to move the min, max, and close buttons back to the right side. http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/13535/move-window-buttons-back-to-the-right-in-ubuntu-10.04/ Even I was able to follow these directions and make it happen!

Written by turbolad the 5 Jul 10 at 15:42.

As per title. Buttons to the right by default, with an option to move to the left.

Don't forget to keep the little circle, which when clicked on, has options such as "Always On Top", "Move to Workspace Right" etc. These options should never be removed and I think the 3 buttons should be on the right by default, as most newbies are familiar with that setup.

As per title. Buttons to the right by default, with an option to move to the left. Don't forget to keep the little circle, which when clicked on, has options such as "Always On Top", "Move to Workspace Right" etc. These options should never be removed and I think the 3 buttons should be on the right by default, as most newbies are familiar with that setup.

Written by baretobareto the 3 Aug 10 at 20:31.

Fisrt of all, sorry for my English.

Why we really needs buttons to the right? Well theres no real difference between having your buttons on the left or on the right, its just a matter of have the enough time to get used to one position or another.
But what about if we have these button in a complete new position.
What about having min, max, close buttons on the right BUT in the lower side of the windows instead of the upper side.

If you think about it, when you open a document or a web-page, you need to scroll down to really knows if that document is what you are looking for. When a document is too long, you need to use the scroll down arrow. So your mouse-arrow will be closer to the lower right of the window instead of the upper side of the window.
If you want to look to a minimize window that you think it would be not useful anymore, you need to un-minimize this window. If the buttons are in the lower right of the window it will be needed much less movement of your hand to close it after un-minimize because the close button will be closer to the task bar.

<a target="_blank" title="ImageShack - Image And Video Hosting" href="http://img641.imageshack.us/i/screenshot5qs.png/"><img src="http://img641.imageshack.us/img641/8462/screenshot5qs.png" border="0"/></a> Fisrt of all, sorry for my English. Why we really needs buttons to the right? Well theres no real difference between having your buttons on the left or on the right, its just a matter of have the enough time to get used to one position or another. But what about if we have these button in a complete new position. What about having min, max, close buttons on the right BUT in the lower side of the windows instead of the upper side. If you think about it, when you open a document or a web-page, you need to scroll down to really knows if that document is what you are looking for. When a document is too long, you need to use the scroll down arrow. So your mouse-arrow will be closer to the lower right of the window instead of the upper side of the window. If you want to look to a minimize window that you think it would be not useful anymore, you need to un-minimize this window. If the buttons are in the lower right of the window it will be needed much less movement of your hand to close it after un-minimize because the close button will be closer to the task bar. As you see there are some reason to have buttons in the lower side of the window BUT I know there are others to have this buttons on others positions. So, why not to put this buttons in a completely new position. This could be a ubuntu-only-feature just like the recycle bin in the task bar is a ubuntu-only-feature.

Written by mydoghasworms the 10 Jan 11 at 06:41.

When a new user logs in for the first time on 11.04 with the Unity desktop, provide a little guided tour/wizard (e.g. like on Android 2.3) that provides an introduction on Unity and how to use its features.

Also tell users how to access the tour again, and obviously allow the tour to be started as an application should users need to see it again.

When a new user logs in for the first time on 11.04 with the Unity desktop, provide a little guided tour/wizard (e.g. like on Android 2.3) that provides an introduction on Unity and how to use its features. Also tell users how to access the tour again, and obviously allow the tour to be started as an application should users need to see it again.

Written by ki4jgt the 22 Jan 11 at 08:43.

I'm sorry to all the Unity fans out there, but I hate it! It makes things very complicated, like in situations where you need to minimize a window (instead of just moving it to the background/another space) If the item is placed in the sidebar, you can't tell if it's open or just an icon. (except for the little arrow) but then it even gets fooled by some programs :-(
It also takes up a lot of vertical space (netbooks don't have much height or width) Ubuntu needs to make one bar and integrate everything into it.
***To the comment about GUIs feeling natural Computers are tools and as all tools go, usability must come before natural. What feels natural to one, may be totally unnatural to another.

I'm sorry to all the Unity fans out there, but I hate it! It makes things very complicated, like in situations where you need to minimize a window (instead of just moving it to the background/another space) If the item is placed in the sidebar, you can't tell if it's open or just an icon. (except for the little arrow) but then it even gets fooled by some programs :-( It also takes up a lot of vertical space (netbooks don't have much height or width) Ubuntu needs to make one bar and integrate everything into it. ***To the comment about GUIs feeling natural Computers are tools and as all tools go, usability must come before natural. What feels natural to one, may be totally unnatural to another.

Written by Timothy the 22 Jan 11 at 17:18.

The Ubuntu Tour Project aims to facilitate the transition to Ubuntu.
http://ubuntutour.org/
It's missing writing about Unity at the moment, contributers are welcomed!

The Ubuntu Tour Project aims to facilitate the transition to Ubuntu. http://ubuntutour.org/ It's missing writing about Unity at the moment, contributers are welcomed!

Written by anon4698 the 30 Oct 11 at 23:12.

Simply, a new UI that feels comfortable to use. It should work well on tablets to be future proof.

The idea (SVGs and PNGs in .tar.gz), pictures are worth a thousand words so:
http://www.mediafire.com/?b2lc2323u2ybsj1

(view against white background, images shouldn't be transparent)

Simply, a new UI that feels comfortable to use. It should work well on tablets to be future proof. The idea (SVGs and PNGs in .tar.gz), pictures are worth a thousand words so: http://www.mediafire.com/?b2lc2323u2ybsj1 (view against white background, images shouldn't be transparent)